VeriDecs Language Pattern Report

🔍 VeriDecs Analysis

Primary Label: time_gap_indicator

Analysis: VeriDecs detected stylistic markers consistent with this category.

⚖️ Culpability Assessment

The statement giver is highly likely to be culpable or have direct knowledge of the crime. The narrative contains multiple significant chronological contradictions, passive language to distance from the event, and inconsistent details, all of which are strong indicators of deception. The statement appears to be a fabricated account of a staged event.

Suspected Time Frame: Wednesday morning, likely between 6:30 a.m. and 7:10 a.m. The subject's timeline is intentionally distorted, but the contradictory statement about seeing the truck at 6:45 a.m. suggests the actual event or its setup occurred before his claimed 7:00 a.m. departure from the warehouse.

⚠️ Deception Signals Detected (Leakage)

Severity: leakage_detected
Signals detected:
- Narrative Tense Shift
- Detached Clause
- Unnecessary Words
- Incomplete Action Phrases
- Incompletion Markers
- Tense Shift Phrases
- Unsolicited Justification
- Synonym Usage Drift
- Multi Word Phrase Repetition
- Possessive Attribution Drift
- Number Format Inconsistency
- Passive Voice
- Lacks Expected Emotion
- Soft Talk During Threat Of Violence
- Missing Proprietary Reference
- Time Compression
- Temporal Phrases
- Pronoun Omission

⏳ Forensic Note on Repetition:
Multi-Word Phrase Repetition was identified. In linguistic analysis, repetition can often be a rhythmic habit or a temporal anchor (e.g., repeating times/dates). Note: Because this is appearing in a cluster with other markers, the repetition suggests higher cognitive load and narrative reinforcement.

17 narrative leakage pattern(s) detected. Each flagged feature may reflect emotional detachment, memory reconstruction, or intent reframing. Interpret carefully and triangulate with context.

📚 What Is Leakage?
In Linguistic Analysis, leakage refers to the unintentional release of information by a person trying to be deceptive. The truth "leaks" through subconscious cues because maintaining a lie is cognitively demanding. An honest statement is a report of memory; a deceptive statement is a fabrication that requires constant management.

✂️ Why Sentence Length Matters
“The shortest sentence is the best sentence.” — Mark McClish.
Truthful people tend to be direct. Deceptive individuals often use longer, more complex structures filled with qualifiers and justifications as they work to manage the listener's perception of the event.

🔍 Unnecessary Words Detected
This statement contains words that may not affect sentence clarity but can reflect emotional distancing, discomfort, or verbal control. While some may be stylistic, others may signal deeper psychological patterns such as minimization, persuasion, or embedded self-correction. Check the flagged words used: if used often it may be subject's way of speaking, if only used once check the context. The word 'so' often used may signal the person is explaining his actions.

Detected Terms:

▸ even (1 time)
Unnecessary Intensifier
Often used to amplify a denial or emphasize emotional distance; signals rhetorical overcompensation.
▸ i think (1 time)
Qualifiers & Lack of Commitment
Creates a 'way out' for the speaker, avoiding firm responsibility for the information.

⏳ Narrative Flow Anomaly
A chronological inconsistency was detected. Truthful accounts typically follow a linear sequence of sensory memory. Out-of-order details often indicate 'planted' information or a rehearsed narrative where the subject is working to bolster their credibility rather than recounting memory.

Out-of-Order Segments:

* "On my way to work, I noticed a truck parked at Maple Ridge Road and 11th Avenue earlier that morning around 6:45 a.m., even though I hadn’t left the warehouse yet."
The subject's claim to have seen the attackers' truck at 6:45 a.m. before he left the warehouse at 7:00 a.m. is a chronological impossibility. This slip suggests he had knowledge of the truck's location prior to the alleged assault, which he should not have possessed if his story were true.

⏳ Time Distortion Detected
The subject describes a traumatic event as occurring 'too fast' or as a 'blur.' Scientific studies on trauma suggest that victims typically experience an expansion of time. Using speed to describe the event can indicate a rehearsed narrative or an attempt to bypass a lack of genuine sensory memory.

▸ went too fast
The subject uses the phrase 'went too fast' to describe a high-impact event. Forensic studies show that during genuine trauma, the brain typically experiences 'time expansion' (tachypsychia), resulting in vivid, slow-motion detail. Claiming the event was 'too fast' or 'a blur' is often a linguistic strategy to bypass providing a step-by-step account or to conceal specific actions.

🏠 Lack of Proprietary Interest

The subject repeatedly refers to key personal assets (car, home, phone) without using possessive pronouns. This signals psychological distancing. The speaker is linguistically "disowning" the object mentioned.

Unclaimed Assets:

The "keys" was mentioned 2 times with zero ownership.
The "office" was mentioned 2 times with zero ownership.

Forensic Note: Why is the subject distancing themselves from this specific item? In insurance fraud or staged crimes, the "asset" is often viewed as a mere prop in the story rather than a personal possession.

⚠️ Softened Language (Violence Context)

VeriDecs detected neutral or minimizing verbs used within an established violent context. In truthful accounts of trauma, subjects typically use forceful, sensory verbs (e.g., "shoved," "yanked") rather than polite or passive wording. Minimizing language may reflect emotional distancing or narrative control.

Flagged Phraseology:

▸ "When I tried to go around, two men opened the door to my vehicle and pointed their weapons at me and told me to move and put my head down."
▸ "They asked me for the keys for the lock and I gave them the keys from my pocket."
▸ "They were in my truck for about 10 minutes, and then they took off in their truck."

Investigative Strategy: Ask for sensory detail to verify the application of force. Example prompts:

"At the moment he 'put' his hand there, what was the physical sensation?"
"Describe the movement he used to 'take' the phone."

🧊 Passive Voice & Distancing Detected
Passive voice occurs when the subject of a sentence is acted upon, rather than performing the action (e.g., "the door was opened" instead of "I opened the door"). In Linguistic Analysis, this often signals a lack of personal ownership or a subconscious attempt to distance oneself from the event. By removing the "I," the speaker avoids identifying the actor.

Flagged Constructions:

▸ was assaulted
The phrase 'was assaulted' uses passive voice. By using passive construction, the speaker removes the 'actor' from the sentence. This often signals a lack of personal ownership or a desire to obscure who specifically performed the action.
▸ was still shaken
The phrase 'was still shaken' uses passive voice. By using passive construction, the speaker removes the 'actor' from the sentence. This often signals a lack of personal ownership or a desire to obscure who specifically performed the action.

Investigative Tip: When you see passive voice, the "Actor" has been hidden. Re-interview by asking: "You mentioned the [object] was [action]ed—specifically, whose hands performed that movement?"

❄️ Clinical Account Detected (Missing Reaction)
The subject describes a high-stress "Peak Incident" but provides no immediate sensory or physiological reactions. Truthful trauma recall typically includes sensory anchors (sounds, physical sensations, or startle responses) due to adrenaline. A purely clinical description often suggests a rehearsed script or a lack of genuine lived experience.

Sanitized Moments:

▸ "Then I was assaulted by three individuals carrying weapons"
The subject describes a peak event ('Then I was assaulted by three individuals carrying weapons') but provides no physiological or sensory details (heart rate, sounds, physical sensations) within the immediate context. Genuine trauma usually records these sensory details even when emotions are suppressed.

Investigative Tip: The subject has provided the "what" but not the "feel." Ask: "At the exact second you felt that object in your back, what was the very first physical sensation that went through your body?"

⚠️ Action Omission Detected (High Flag)
The statement uses language that describes the **start of an action** (intention or attempt) but deliberately **omits the final completion** or outcome. This linguistic gap is a key indicator of potential omission or minimization of a critical event, suggesting the speaker is creating psychological distance from the full action.

Flagged Phrases:

▸ and went to bed (1 time)
Action Omission / Incomplete Action
The phrase 'went to [verb]' is a critical linguistic marker. It describes an **attempt** or **intention** (the start of the action) but deliberately omits the **completion** of the action. For instance, 'I went to pull the trigger' does not confirm 'I pulled the trigger'. This is a common verbal hedge used to create psychological distance or omit a critical outcome, suggesting something important happened between the intention and the stated end of the sentence.

🧠 Weak Assertion Detected

The statement contains linguistic cues that may indicate a lack of commitment or distancing from the narrative.

Specific Findings:

Phrases Found:

▸ Then jumped out of my vehicle and ran to get help sometime around 7:05 a.m., I think.

🔍 Detached Narrative Detected
VeriDecs identified a “lonely clause” pattern — a phrasing where the speaker says “I + [past verb] + with [person]” in a way that grammatically separates themselves from whoever they were with. This structure often indicates emotional or psychological distancing from the event or the person mentioned.

🔍 Example:
“I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky.” — Bill Clinton
This statement was made in January 1998 during a televised address. It was later proven false when Clinton admitted to an “improper physical relationship” with Monica Lewinsky. He was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice.

📌 Why It Matters:
Lonely clause structures often appear when a speaker wants to acknowledge an action without fully owning it. By grammatically separating themselves from others involved (“I did... with”), they may be distributing responsibility or emotionally distancing themselves from the event. This subtle shift can be a marker of narrative manipulation or internal conflict.

Trigger Phrase:

🧩 I talked with the manager about the new shipping rates sometime around 2:00 p.m.

🌀 Narrative Tense Shift Detected
VeriDecs flagged a shift in grammatical tense, moving from past to present. This kind of transition often signals a change in how the speaker is mentally framing the event — it may reflect emotional intensity, reconstructed memory, or a deliberate reframing of reality. When someone recounts a story from memory, they typically use the past tense. But when the narrative slips into the present, it can suggest the speaker is no longer recalling but instead reimagining or performing the event. In deception contexts, this shift may indicate the story isn’t anchored in lived experience, but is being constructed in real time.

Detected Phrases:

Monday: I woke up at 5:30 a.m. like I usually do.

🔢 Number Three Detected
This statement contains references to the number three — either as a digit, word, or time format (e.g., 3:00 or 03:30). While seemingly benign, the number three has drawn attention in deception research due to its frequent appearance in fabricated narratives.

In 2009, Mark McClish conducted two studies exploring deceptive language. In the first, 48% of participants who fabricated a story between 1:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. introduced their first time reference as 3:00 or 3:30. In the second, when asked to invent a break-in scenario and report the number of stolen guns, three was the most cited number — chosen by 15 participants, compared to 11 who chose five.

While not definitive proof of deception, the recurrence of “three” in fabricated accounts may reflect subconscious patterning or cognitive bias. Also often "three" is used by the subject when the exact number is not known. VeriDecs flags this as a linguistic anomaly worth further consideration.

3:00
three
3

🧠 Pronoun Omission Detected
Linguistic Analysis methodology flags all pronoun omissions as areas of analytical interest. In many cases this is normal grammatical structure. However, when such omissions occur near sensitive narrative zones, they may sometimes reflect psychological distancing or narrative compression. Context determines significance.

Detected Omissions:

▸ **Omitted Subject:** **I** (Before: **Then jumped out of my vehicle and ran to get help**)
**Analysis:** *The pronoun 'I' is omitted immediately before the verb 'jumped' during the most critical point in the narrative—the escape. This omission reduces the subject's psychological ownership of this crucial action, a significant indicator of deception or withheld information.*

🚪 Strategic Exit Transitions Detected

The subject utilized transitional verbs that bridge time gaps. In statement analysis, these often serve as "Temporal Bridges" that allow a speaker to compress time and skip over specific movements or interactions.

Detected Triggers:

                went  •  left  •  took off
            

Forensic Note: The specific use of 'left' is a high-frequency marker for withheld information at the conclusion of an event.

🔁 Repetitive Language Pattern Detected
Repetition of the same word in close succession can reflect cognitive stress, emotional preoccupation, or narrative rehearsal. While some repetition may be natural, clustered usage can signal internal tension or fixation.

Repeated Terms:

▸ pm (3 times)

The word appears multiple times within a short span. In linguistic analysis, this kind of “lexical loop” often suggests the speaker is struggling to move past a particular point in the narrative or is fixated on a person, object, or idea due to internal stress.

🔄 Packaged Narrative Anchors

The subject repeatedly utilized specific phrasing across the statement. In forensic linguistics, this "rhetorical anchoring" often indicates a rehearsed narrative intended to steer perception.

"until about" 4x

"left the" 4x

"left the warehouse" 3x

"i didn t" 3x

"checking the" 3x

"home around" 3x

"maple ridge road and" 2x

"ridge road and 11th" 2x

"road and 11th avenue" 2x

"everything went too fast" 2x

"the warehouse i" 2x

"and checking the" 2x

"i left at" 2x

"talked with the" 2x

"got home around" 2x

"i arrived at" 2x

"i left the" 2x

"my vehicle and" 2x

⚠️ Normalization Fixation Detected

The subject is fixated on establishing a "normal routine" (e.g., repeating sleep or meal times). In deceptive statements, this is frequently used to project a false sense of stability or to mask irregular activities during critical time gaps.

🚧 Incompletion/Effort Markers Detected
The subject used verbs or phrases that report an **attempt** or **effort** but stop short of confirming a successful outcome. This is a crucial indicator that the intended action either failed, was incomplete, or did not happen, allowing the speaker to avoid admitting failure or non-compliance.

Detected Phrases:

▸ tried (2 times)
Incompletion / Effort, Not Result
These phrases report the expenditure of effort (an attempt) but stop short of confirming a successful outcome or a completed action. In linguistic analysis, this is critical because it allows the speaker to address a prompt ('Did you X?') by confirming the effort ('I tried to X.') without accepting responsibility for the result or confirming success, which often signals failure or incompletion.

🔁 Routine Substitution Detected
The subject described what *usually* happens instead of clearly stating what occurred during the specific event being questioned. This substitution of routine for reality can indicate avoidance, uncertainty, or selective narration of sensitive details.

Detected Phrases:

▸ usually (1 time)
Routine Substitution (Specific Event Avoidance)
This phrase indicates the subject is describing a general routine rather than what specifically occurred during the critical event. In Statement Analysis, this is a strong indicator of **event avoidance**, as truthful speakers tend to describe what happened, not what usually happens. Substituting routine for reality can signal uncertainty, selective memory, or deliberate omission.

⚠️ Unsolicited Justification Detected (Word "Because")
The word **'because'** signals an explanation or justification offered without being directly asked 'why'. This indicates the subject is **anticipating scrutiny** and feels compelled to defend or explain their actions/statement. The information immediately preceding or following this trigger is often highly **sensitive** and should be examined for potential deception or omission.

Detected Triggers:

▸ because (1 time)
Unsolicited Explanation
The word 'because' is a strong explanation marker. It often indicates the speaker feels a need to justify an action that hasn't been questioned.

🕰️ Temporal Phrasing Detected
This statement contains time-related language that may reflect narrative compression, omission, or strategic vagueness. These phrases often appear when speakers skip over events, delay realizations, or avoid committing to specific timelines.

Detected Phrases:

▸ then (4 times)
Sequence & Compression
Phrasing can be used to compress time or hide skipped actions. When used ambiguously or repeatedly, it often signals an attempt to avoid scrutiny by glossing over details between events.
▸ after (1 time)
Spanning Time & Omission
General use of 'after' implies a gap between events. If no details are provided for the time that elapsed, it may indicate intentional omission or missing information. See if the statement lacks crucial information what happened before the described events.
▸ on my way (1 time)
Casual Masking
Casual phrasing like 'on my way' can mask emotional intensity or skip over key transitions. It is often used in emotionally charged contexts when the speaker wants to sound composed or detached.
▸ about (6 times)
Temporal Uncertainty
Words like 'maybe,' 'about,' 'i think,' or 'i guess' introduce uncertainty. This can reflect memory manipulation or an intentional vagueness to avoid committing to a precise timeline.
▸ i think (1 time)
Temporal Uncertainty
Words like 'maybe,' 'about,' 'i think,' or 'i guess' introduce uncertainty. This can reflect memory manipulation or an intentional vagueness to avoid committing to a precise timeline.
▸ after that (1 time)
Temporal Lacunae (Missing Gap)
These phrases span time and indicate a missing gap (Lacunae). They are used to gloss over a period that contains information the subject either considers unimportant or, more significantly, is deliberately **withholding sensitive information** about.

💡 Investigative Tip
Use flagged temporal phrases to identify narrative blind spots or inconsistencies. Look for compressed sequences, vague time windows, or uncertain timestamps that may obscure key events. Cross-reference these with known timelines, surveillance data, or witness accounts to uncover omissions or strategic reframing.

🧠 Definite Object Reference (Pre-introduction)
VeriDecs flagged the use of "the" for an object not yet introduced. In a spontaneous memory, a new object is typically introduced as "a" or "an" (indefinite).

🔍 Why This Matters: Using "the" prematurely suggests the speaker already had the object in mind—a sign of cognitive pre-loading or narrative rehearsal. The speaker is linguistically "skipping ahead" to a known prop in their mental script rather than recalling its first appearance.

Flagged Terms:

truck

⚡ Case-level insight: Significance is highest when applied to "core" objects (weapons, entry points, etc.). If used on incidental items outside the emotional core, significance is low.

📚 Synonym Drift Detected
In Statement Analysis, no two words are truly interchangeable. Truthful speakers maintain a consistent Internal Dictionary—a unique set of words used to describe their reality.

⚖️ The Forensic Rule: “A change in language is an indication of deception—unless there is a justification for the change.” — Mark McClish

Unexpectedly swapping terms (e.g., “pistol” ➝ “gun”) without a change in the object's function suggests narrative construction. The speaker is no longer recalling a fixed memory, but is instead linguistically distancing themselves or "re-labeling" the event in real-time.

Detected Terminology Shifts:

🔸 Vehicle: truck ↔ vehicle

🔸 Persons Males: guys ↔ individuals ↔ men

🔸 Two: 2 ↔ two

🔸 Three: 3 ↔ three

🔸 To Go: go ↔ leave ↔ move

🔸 Street Location: avenue ↔ road

Investigative Note: Check if the shift occurs at a "hot spot" in the story. A change in vocabulary often marks the exact moment of highest psychological stress.

📅 Daily Activity Timeline Visual Rhythm Map

This interactive breakdown highlights how each day unfolded, revealing rhythm, peaks, and continuity across time blocks.

🗓️ Monday

Unnarrated Activity

⏱ 12:00 AM – 5:00 AM

I woke up at

⏱ 5:00 AM – 5:30 AM

a.m. like I usually do. Had some coffee and at

⏱ 5:30 AM – 6:00 AM

a.m. I drove over to the warehouse. I spent the morning doing inventory until about

⏱ 6:00 AM – 11:00 AM

a.m. Nothing unusual happened. After lunch I went back to counting pallets and checking the manifests until p.m. I left at p.m., went home around p.m., and went to bed early

⏱ 11:00 AM –

🗓️ Tuesday

Unnarrated Activity

⏱ 12:00 AM – 2:00 AM

was pretty busy. I got to work at a.m. I loaded the truck for the North route and left the warehouse around a.m. I made all my deliveries on time and I remember stopping for a quick coffee at a.m. I talked with the manager about the new shipping rates sometime around p.m. I got home around

⏱ 2:00 AM – 6:00 AM

Narrated Activity

⏱ 6:00 AM – 6:30 AM

a.m. I loaded the truck for the North route and left the warehouse around

⏱ 6:30 AM – 7:15 AM

a.m. I made all my deliveries on time and I remember stopping for a quick coffee at a.m. I talked with the manager about the new shipping rates sometime around p.m. I got home around p.m. and watched TV until about

⏱ 7:15 AM – 8:00 AM

Narrated Activity

⏱ 8:00 AM – 10:00 AM

a.m. I talked with the manager about the new shipping rates sometime around p.m. I got home around p.m. and watched TV until about p.m

⏱ 10:00 AM –

🗓️ Wednesday

Unnarrated Activity

⏱ 12:00 AM – 6:30 AM

I arrived at work at a.m. and loaded my truck. At a.m. I left the warehouse and when I stopped at the intersection of Maple Ridge Road and 11th Avenue and saw a strange parked vehicle. Then I was assaulted by three individuals carrying weapons. On my way to work, I noticed a truck parked at Maple Ridge Road and 11th Avenue earlier that morning around

⏱ 6:30 AM – 6:45 AM

Narrated Activity

⏱ 6:45 AM – 7:00 AM

a.m. I left the warehouse and when I stopped at the intersection of Maple Ridge Road and 11th Avenue and saw a strange parked vehicle. Then I was assaulted by three individuals carrying weapons. On my way to work, I noticed a truck parked at Maple Ridge Road and 11th Avenue earlier that morning around a.m., even though I hadn’t left the warehouse yet. I also remember checking the delivery log at a.m., but everything went too fast after that. The same truck stopped me and wouldn’t let me pass. When I tried to go around, two men opened the door to my vehicle and pointed their weapons at me and told me to move and put my head down. I couldn’t see the men or the clothes they were wearing. Everything went too fast. They came into the truck and handcuffed me. They asked me for the keys for the lock and I gave them the keys from my pocket. They were in my truck for about 10 minutes, and then they took off in their truck. Then jumped out of my vehicle and ran to get help sometime around

⏱ 7:00 AM – 7:05 AM

Narrated Activity

⏱ 7:05 AM – 7:20 AM

a.m., but everything went too fast after that. The same truck stopped me and wouldn’t let me pass. When I tried to go around, two men opened the door to my vehicle and pointed their weapons at me and told me to move and put my head down. I couldn’t see the men or the clothes they were wearing. Everything went too fast. They came into the truck and handcuffed me. They asked me for the keys for the lock and I gave them the keys from my pocket. They were in my truck for about 10 minutes, and then they took off in their truck. Then jumped out of my vehicle and ran to get help sometime around a.m., I think

⏱ 7:20 AM –

🗓️ Thursday

Unnarrated Activity

⏱ 12:00 AM – 1:30 AM

I didn’t go into the warehouse until p.m. because I was still shaken up. I sat in the office doing paperwork until about p.m. and then talked with the insurance people around

⏱ 1:30 AM – 2:00 AM

p.m. I didn’t do any driving. I left the office at

⏱ 2:00 AM – 4:00 AM

p.m. and got home around

⏱ 4:00 AM – 4:20 AM

Narrated Activity

⏱ 4:20 AM – 12:00 PM

p.m. because I was still shaken up. I sat in the office doing paperwork until about p.m. and then talked with the insurance people around p.m. I didn’t do any driving. I left the office at p.m. and got home around p.m

⏱ 12:00 PM –

🗓️ Friday

Unnarrated Activity

⏱ 12:00 AM – 1:00 AM

I tried getting back to a normal routine. I arrived at a.m. I helped the guys on the dock until about a.m., but I didn’t want to leave the warehouse. I stayed inside all day, mostly organizing the back shelves around a.m. and checking the incoming shipment list at p.m. I left at

⏱ 1:00 AM – 3:00 AM

Narrated Activity

⏱ 3:00 AM – 6:30 AM

a.m. I helped the guys on the dock until about

⏱ 6:30 AM – 9:00 AM

a.m., but I didn’t want to leave the warehouse. I stayed inside all day, mostly organizing the back shelves around

⏱ 9:00 AM – 11:00 AM

a.m. and checking the incoming shipment list at p.m. I left at p.m. to meet with my lawyer

⏱ 11:00 AM –

📊 Activity Metrics Overview

Visual performance summary for each day.

Friday

Blocks: 5 (1 below peak)

Total Active: 10h 0m

Avg Interval: 120 min

Monday

Blocks: 4 (2 below peak)

Total Active: 6h 0m

Avg Interval: 90 min

Thursday

Blocks: 5 (1 below peak)

Total Active: 10h 30m

Avg Interval: 126 min

Tuesday

Blocks: 6 (🔥 Peak)

Total Active: 8h 0m

Avg Interval: 80 min

Wednesday

Blocks: 5 (1 below peak)

Total Active: 0h 50m

Avg Interval: 10 min

📈 Peak Day: Tuesday
📊 Avg Daily Blocks: 5

🧠 Behavioral Insights

Friday
Friday followed expected structure.

Monday
Monday followed expected structure.

Thursday
Thursday followed expected structure.

Tuesday
Tuesday had peak activity —

Wednesday
Wednesday followed expected structure.

📌 Reflection Suggestions

🔸 Peak days may indicate intense focus, emotional spikes, or overload. Reflect on sustainability.

🔹 Low-activity days may reveal missed structure or narrative disruption. Consider context.

🔎 Deviations expose pacing irregularities — useful for spotting stress or transitions in rhythm.

⚠️ Denial Tense Divergence

Denial Tense Divergence Detected: Subject shifts into present-tense verbs while describing a past event. This often indicates a transition from memory-based recall to rehearsing assertions.

🕰️ The Memory Rule: When a subject describes a past event from actual memory, past tense is expected. A sudden shift to the present tense ("I don't" instead of "I didn't") suggests the speaker may be constructing the story in the moment or creating a "truthful loophole" that only applies to the present day.

⚖️ Tense Matching: Always check if the answer matches the question’s tense. If asked "Did you do it?" (Past), an answer of "I don't do things like that" (Present) is a non-denial. It addresses a general habit rather than the specific incident.

Detected Indicators:

                    ❓ Present tense: carrying, checking, counting, do, doing, getting, nothing, organizing, remember, sat, sometime, stopping, think, want
                  

                    ❓ Past tense: arrived, asked, assaulted, came, drove, gave, got, happened, helped, jumped, left, loaded, made, noticed, opened, parked, pointed, saw, shaken, spent, stayed, stopped, talked, told, took, tried, was, wearing, went, were, woke
                  

🗣️ Linguistic Analysis Report

Overall Linguistic Analysis Summary:

                        The subject's statement establishes a credible baseline for Monday and Tuesday but shows significant and multiple indicators of deception when describing the events of Wednesday. The narrative contains a critical temporal contradiction that is logically impossible, suggesting fabrication. A key pronoun omission occurs at the climax of the story, and the subject uses evasive language ('Everything went too fast') and passive voice to describe the assault itself. These factors combined create a high probability of deception and suggest the subject is likely withholding information or is complicit in the event.
                    

EVASION Score: 75/100

⚠️ **HIGH Evasiveness:** Subject shows consistent patterns of linguistic deflection and non-commitment.

Deception PROBABILITY: 85/100

🚨 **HIGH DECEPTION PROBABILITY:** A critical mass of indicators strongly suggests the narrative is incomplete or untruthful.

Coherence Score: 30/100

🚨 **LOW Coherence:** The narrative is highly fragmented, chronologically disrupted, or lacks critical detail (a sign of a rehearsed or edited account).

🔥 Most Problematic Segments:

Top 3-5 segments with the highest concentration of deception/evasion indicators.

"On my way to work, I noticed a truck parked at Maple Ridge Road and 11th Avenue earlier that morning around 6:45 a.m., even though I hadn’t left the warehouse yet."

Analysis: This segment contains a temporal contradiction that makes the subject's story impossible. He claims to see a truck at 6:45 a.m. while on his way to work, but states he did not leave the warehouse until 7:00 a.m. This is a strong indicator of a rehearsed or fabricated statement and suggests guilty knowledge.
"Then jumped out of my vehicle and ran to get help sometime around 7:05 a.m., I think."

Analysis: The omission of the pronoun 'I' before the action verb 'jumped' is a critical SCAN indicator. This occurs at the narrative's climax (the escape) and serves to psychologically distance the subject from his own actions, reducing accountability. This is highly suggestive of deception.
"Then I was assaulted by three individuals carrying weapons."

Analysis: The use of passive voice ('I was assaulted') removes the subject's agency from the event. Instead of describing what happened to him in active terms, he presents himself as a passive recipient. This is often done to distance oneself from an event one is not being truthful about.
"I couldn’t see the men or the clothes they were wearing. Everything went too fast."

Analysis: This is a form of weak denial combined with evasive language. Rather than state what he saw, he denies the ability to see and uses the vague phrase 'Everything went too fast' to avoid providing details that could be verified or challenged.

🔄 Significant Language Shifts:

Points where the subject's linguistic pattern changes (e.g., tense, pronoun usage).

BEFORE: At 7:00 a.m. I left the warehouse and when I stopped at the intersection of Maple Ridge Road and 11th Avenue and saw a strange parked vehicle.
AFTER: Then I was assaulted by three individuals carrying weapons.

Change Analysis: The subject switches from the active 'I did...' structure used throughout the baseline narrative to the passive 'I was assaulted'. This change in voice distances the subject from the event, making him a passive recipient rather than an active participant in the story, which is a common deceptive pattern when describing a critical incident.
BEFORE: They were in my truck for about 10 minutes, and then they took off in their truck.
AFTER: Then jumped out of my vehicle and ran to get help...

Change Analysis: The subject consistently uses 'my truck' to refer to his work vehicle. At the moment of his purported escape, he switches to the more formal and distant 'my vehicle'. This subtle change indicates psychological distancing from the object/location associated with the trauma or deception.

❌ Deception Indicators (3):

Specific Lie: "On my way to work, I noticed a truck parked at Maple Ridge Road and 11th Avenue earlier that morning around 6:45 a.m., even though I hadn’t left the warehouse yet."
The subject creates an impossible timeline, stating he saw a truck at 6:45 a.m. 'on my way to work' while also stating he didn't leave the warehouse until 7:00 a.m. This is a direct factual contradiction, indicating a fabricated element in the narrative.
Pronoun Omission: "Then jumped out of my vehicle and ran to get help"
At the climax of the event—the escape—the subject omits the pronoun 'I'. This psychologically distances him from the action, reducing his ownership of the decision to flee. This is a highly significant indicator of deception in a critical part of the narrative.
Weak Denial: "I couldn’t see the men or the clothes they were wearing."
The statement 'I couldn’t see' is a weak denial of sensory information. A truthful account would likely be more direct ('I didn't see') or offer partial details. 'Couldn't' suggests an external constraint rather than a simple failure to observe, which can be a deceptive construction.

🌫️ Evasion Indicators (2):

Vague Language: "Everything went too fast."
This phrase is used twice to avoid providing specific, verifiable details about the assault. It serves as a narrative filler to gloss over a period where a truthful subject would likely recall sensory details, even if chaotic.
Distancing Phrase: "Then jumped out of my vehicle and ran to get help"
The subject consistently refers to his truck as 'my truck'. However, immediately after the assault, during the description of his escape, he switches to the more formal and distant term 'my vehicle'. This linguistic shift indicates psychological distancing from the traumatic event or location.

🔑 Guilty Knowledge Indicators (2):

Segments revealing information the subject shouldn't possess if innocent.

"On my way to work, I noticed a truck parked at Maple Ridge Road and 11th Avenue earlier that morning around 6:45 a.m., even though I hadn’t left the warehouse yet."
The subject's claim to have seen the attackers' truck at 6:45 a.m. before he left the warehouse at 7:00 a.m. is a chronological impossibility. This slip suggests he had knowledge of the truck's location prior to the alleged assault, which he should not have possessed if his story were true.
"They asked me for the keys for the lock and I gave them the keys from my pocket."
The description of this interaction is unusually passive and transactional. A typical victim might describe fear or coercion. The subject simply states he was asked for the keys and he gave them. This smooth, compliant exchange may indicate prior knowledge of the plan or the assailants' objective.

🔎 Activity Confession Scan
This analysis detects signs of deception by examining chronological narratives for inconsistencies, time gaps, and behavioral leakage.

⚖️ Culpability Assessment:

The statement giver is highly likely to be culpable or have direct knowledge of the crime. The narrative contains multiple significant chronological contradictions, passive language to distance from the event, and inconsistent details, all of which are strong indicators of deception. The statement appears to be a fabricated account of a staged event.

⏱️ Suspected Time Frame:

Wednesday morning, likely between 6:30 a.m. and 7:10 a.m. The subject's timeline is intentionally distorted, but the contradictory statement about seeing the truck at 6:45 a.m. suggests the actual event or its setup occurred before his claimed 7:00 a.m. departure from the warehouse.

🧠 Analysis Breakdown:

Chronological Contradictions and Reality Shift
                                    The subject creates an impossible timeline. He claims to have seen the suspect vehicle at 6:45 a.m. 'on my way to work' but also states he arrived at work at 6:30 a.m. and did not leave the warehouse until 7:00 a.m. Furthermore, he claims to remember 'checking the delivery log at 7:20 a.m.,' which is after the entire assault supposedly concluded. These contradictions indicate a fabricated story.
                                

Passive Language and Psychological Distancing
                                    The subject uses the passive phrase 'Then I was assaulted by three individuals.' A truthful account from a victim would typically use active language, such as 'Three men assaulted me.' This passive construction psychologically distances the writer from the event, suggesting he is describing something he was not an actual victim of.
                                

Inconsistent Critical Details
                                    The statement first mentions an assault by 'three individuals' but later describes 'two men' opening the vehicle door. A discrepancy in the number of assailants is a major red flag and points to the story being invented rather than recalled from memory.
                                

Time Gaps and Rushed Narrative
                                    The subject repeats the phrase 'Everything went too fast' and states he 'couldn’t see the men or the clothes they were wearing.' This is a common linguistic strategy to gloss over the central part of a fabricated event, avoiding the need to invent verifiable details. The use of 'I think' when providing the time he ran for help also signals uncertainty and deception about a critical point in the timeline.
                                

Embedded Confession
                                    The contradictory statement, 'On my way to work, I noticed a truck parked at Maple Ridge Road... earlier that morning around 6:45 a.m., even though I hadn’t left the warehouse yet,' serves as an embedded confession. He is admitting to knowledge or presence at the scene at a time that breaks his own alibi. This suggests he was at the location prior to 7:00 a.m., likely to coordinate the staged event.
                                

🧠 Possessive Reframing Detected
VeriDecs observed a shift in possessive framing for one or more objects. This may reflect emotional distancing, disownership, or narrative staging.

Transitions:

🔄 truck (Personal to Neutral Drift): the ➝ my ➝ the ➝ the ➝ my

🔢 Numeral Style Shift Detected
VeriDecs identified a stylistic change in how numbers were expressed — alternating between digit-based (e.g., "3") and word-based (e.g., "three") representations. This may reflect tone inconsistency or deliberate narrative framing.

Shift Patterns:

🧠 3 ➝ three

🧠 two ➝ 10

⏱️ Suspected Day / Time Leakage

Clauses indicating potential temporal distortion or priority manipulation.

Monday : I woke up at 5:30 a.m. like I usually do . Had some coffee
at 6:00 a.m. I drove over to the warehouse . I spent the morning doing inventory until about 11:00 a.m. Nothing unusual happened . After lunch I went back to counting pallets
checking the manifests until 5:00 p.m. I left at 5:00 p.m.
went home around 5:30 p.m.
went to bed early . Tuesday : Tuesday was pretty busy . I got to work at 6:30 a.m. I loaded the truck for the North route
left the warehouse around 7:15 a.m. I made all my deliveries on time
I remember stopping for a quick coffee at 10:00 a.m. I talked with the manager about the new shipping rates sometime around 2:00 p.m. I got home around 6:00 p.m.
🚨watched TV until about 8:00 p.m. Wednesday : I arrived at work at 6:30 a.m.
loaded my truck . At 7:00 a.m. I left the warehouse
when I stopped at the intersection of Maple Ridge Road
11th Avenue
saw a strange parked vehicle .
I was assaulted by three individuals carrying weapons . On my way to work
I noticed a truck parked at Maple Ridge Road
11th Avenue earlier that morning around 6:45 a.m.
even though I had n’t left the warehouse yet . I also remember checking the delivery log at 7:20 a.m.
everything went too fast after that . The same truck stopped me
would n’t let me pass . When I tried to go around
two men opened the door to my vehicle
pointed their weapons at me
told me to move
put my head down . I could n’t see the men or the clothes they were wearing . Everything went too fast . They came into the truck
📝handcuffed me . They asked me for the keys for the lock
I gave them the keys from my pocket . They were in my truck for about 10 minutes
they took off in their truck .
jumped out of my vehicle
ran to get help sometime around 7:05 a.m.
I think . Thursday : I did n’t go into the warehouse until 12:00 p.m. because I was still shaken up . I sat in the office doing paperwork until about 1:30 p.m.
talked with the insurance people around 2:00 p.m. I did n’t do any driving . I left the office at 4:00 p.m.
got home around 4:20 p.m. Friday : I tried getting back to a normal routine . I arrived at 6:30 a.m. I helped the guys on the dock until about 9:00 a.m.
I did n’t want to leave the warehouse . I stayed inside all day
mostly organizing the back shelves around 11:00 a.m.
checking the incoming shipment list at 1:00 p.m. I left at 3:00 p.m. to meet with my lawyer .

✨ Forensic Annotation Key

I Pronoun Commitment (Circled)

^ Pronoun Omission (Caret)

<is> Present Tense (Brackets)

car Synonym Drift (Square)

with Unique Word (Double Underline)

leak Major Pattern (Bold Underline)

* Chronological Anomaly (Out of Order)

Chronological sentence breakdown with visually marked leakage patterns.

Monday: I woke up at 5:30 a.m. like I usually <do>.
Had some coffee and at 6:00 a.m. I drove over to the warehouse.
I spent the morning <doing> inventory until about 11:00 a.m. <Nothing> unusual happened. After lunch I went back to <counting> pallets and <checking> the manifests until 5:00 p.m. I left at 5:00 p.m., went home around 5:30 p.m., and went to bed early.
Tuesday: Tuesday was pretty busy.
I got to work at 6:30 a.m. I loaded the truck for the North route and left the warehouse around 7:15 a.m. I made all my deliveries on time and I <remember> <stopping> for a quick coffee at 10:00 a.m. I talked with the manager about the new shipping rates <sometime> around 2:00 p.m. I got home around 6:00 p.m. and watched TV until about 8:00 p.m. Wednesday: I arrived at work at 6:30 a.m. and loaded my truck.
*At 7:00 a.m. I left the warehouse and when I stopped at the intersection of Maple Ridge Road and 11th Avenue and saw a strange parked vehicle. Then I was assaulted by three individuals <carrying> weapons. On my way to work, I noticed a truck parked at Maple Ridge Road and 11th Avenue earlier that morning around 6:45 a.m., even though I hadn’t left the warehouse yet.
I also <remember> <checking> the delivery log at 7:20 a.m., but everything went too fast after that.
The same truck stopped me and wouldn’t let me pass.
When I tried to go around, two men opened the door to my vehicle and pointed their weapons at me and told me to move and put my head down.
I couldn’t see the men or the clothes they were wearing. Everything went too fast.
They came into the truck and handcuffed me.
They asked me for the keys for the lock and I gave them the keys from my pocket.
They were in my truck for about 10 minutes, and then they took off in their truck. ^ Then jumped out of my vehicle and ran to get help <sometime> around 7:05 a.m., I <think>. Thursday: I didn’t go into the warehouse until 12:00 p.m. because I was still shaken up.
I <sat> in the office <doing> paperwork until about 1:30 p.m. and then talked with the insurance people around 2:00 p.m. I didn’t <do> any driving. I left the office at 4:00 p.m. and got home around 4:20 p.m. Friday: I tried <getting> back to a normal routine. I arrived at 6:30 a.m. I helped the guys on the dock until about 9:00 a.m., but I didn’t <want> to leave the warehouse.
I stayed inside all day, mostly <organizing> the back shelves around 11:00 a.m. and <checking> the incoming shipment list at 1:00 p.m. I left at 3:00 p.m. to meet with my lawyer.

1. Source Statement

2. Linguistic Pattern Indicators

🔍 VeriDecs Analysis

🗣️ Linguistic Analysis Report